“We know that Egypt has warned the Israelis three days prior that an event like this could happen,” Mr McCaul told reporters following a closed-door intelligence briefing on Wednesday for lawmakers about the Middle East crisis, according to AFP news agency.
An Egyptian intelligence official told the Associated Press news agency this week that Cairo had repeatedly warned the Israelis “something big” was being planned from Gaza.
On Wednesday, Mr Netanyahu described any suggestion that Israel had received a specific warning in advance of the deadly incursion as “totally fake news”.
Israel has been pounding Hamas targets in Gaza in response, while residents of the territory say they have no mains electricity after their only power station ran out of fuel.
Hamas has, meanwhile, condemned US President Joe Biden’s remarks on Tuesday saying Israel had a duty to respond to the attacks, which he called an “act of sheer evil”.
In the wake of the Hamas attack, the US announced it was moving an aircraft carrier, ships and jets to the eastern Mediterranean, and that it would also give Israel additional equipment and ammunition.
The original article contains 435 words, the summary contains 184 words. Saved 58%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
I’m almost certain I remember there being more “”“both sides are valid/we’re just being informative”“” articles about trans people more recently, but here’s an example of one from a couple years ago that was so controversial it got its own Wikipedia article: “We’re being pressured into sex by some trans women”
You claim the BBC are “suggesting that trans people are deviants who are going to ruin the moral fabric of society”, yet this is the best example you can find? Such bold claims require proof, are you sure you’re almost certain you remember the articles, or could you have read a comment parroting this narrative with no actual proof?
I literally replied to two other comments with an example. I’ve deleted the original post because I’m starting to get nasty DMs and I’m really not interested in continuing this now. Here’s the link if you want it, unless you’re just here to be a shithead, in which case fuck off: en.wikipedia.org/…/"We're_being_pressured_into_se…
That article has been edited multiple times due to an influx of complaints. A fuller timeline can be found documented in videos here: https://youtu.be/b4buJMMiwcg
The original article is based on poor premises, elevates the voices of explicitly hateful people, mislead the reader to a false conclusion that trans women are coercing lesbians into sex, platformed a known sexual-assaulter who called for the execution of all trans women. And finally the BBC also just straight up lied about if they interviewed trans people for the article.
It's genuinely a terrible piece of journalism that the BBC should be utterly ashamed of.
...On 31 May 2022, the BBC released rulings from the Head of the Executive Complaints Unit (ECU) that stated that the article was a "legitimate piece of journalism overall" but that it had breached the BBC's standards of accuracy in two ways. Firstly, the headline "gave the misleading impression that the focus of the article would be on pressure applied by trans women" when the actual article focused to an equal degree on "internalised pressure experienced by some lesbians as a result of a climate of opinion ... within the LGBT community".[5] As a result, the title of the article was changed to "The lesbians who feel pressured to have sex and relationships with trans women".[7] Secondly, the head of the ECU found that the coverage of the Get the L Out survey "did not make sufficiently clear that it lacked statistical validity". The wording of the article surrounding the survey was subsequently altered.
I'm aware of the history of the article. The original article was significantly worse, as my comment stated.
But even above that, the article still should not have seen the light of day. It was based on a terrible premise to start with. A similar article would not have been written about other marginalised groups, and if it had it would have rightly been lambasted as absurdly bigoted. The BBC does not write articles like "do people of X race commit crimes?!"
And the fact that the BBC found Lily Cade to be a worthy contributor, even after they were informed of her history of sexual assault, raises so many red flags.
Part of the problem is that when you have a significant number of news sites fueling anti-trans hate, either directly or indirectly, it all starts to blend together. Nevertheless, here’s an example from a couple years ago, though I’m almost certain I’ve seen similar articles more recently.
It was an article that implied that trans women were coercing sex from lesbians.
Now the article was based on a poor premise to start with, "Do some <people in group> do <bad thing>?" is almost always going to be "yes" because there are bad people in basically every demographic. That doesn't mean we go around writing fearmongering articles about those groups. But it gets far, far worse.
The article was based on a survey of 88 women from a group called "Get the L out", whose entire purpose is trans exclusion. So heavily sampling bias to start, to say the least. The group, and the survey, also considered things like saying that trans women are women or can be lesbians to count as "being coerced into having sex with trans women", because implying that trans women are women means that they can be lesbians means that they are within the broader dating pool of lesbians, and to them that amounts to coercing lesbians to date men. Which is obviously absurd and not what a normal person would think of when hearing "coerce into sex". So the survey was deeply misleading and not at all what the headline implied.
The second main contributor to the article was adult actress Lily Cade. Who has admitted to sexually assaulting multiple women. Which makes her an odd choice for an article about sexual assault, don't you think? These assaults were known long before the article was written, and came up with a Google search. Odd that it slipped through the BBC's rigorous editorial process. Cade also went on a rant a few days after the article was published, where she called for all trans women to be executed, and called for several named trans women to be lynched. The BBC cut her contribution with a vague message not explaining why.
The BBC also claimed to have reached out to prominent trans women who speak about sex, and claimed that nobody agreed to speak with them. Which was proven to be a lie when Chelsea Poe, a high-profile trans woman who speaks about sex and relationships, revealed that she had in fact been interviewed.
Genuinely one of the most disgustingly biased pieces of "journalism" I've ever seen.
It’s simply not the BBC’s job to tell people who to support and who to condemn - who are the good guys and who are the bad guys.
I miss when this was the standard for news. Now most (e: major) outlets don’t even try to pretend they have no bias and instead push a subjective point. Even when I agree with the point, I don’t like it when my “news” pushes it instead of just, you know, reporting.
While us Brits love to complain about the BBC being biased (probably an actual issue for internal UK politics) its good to remember that it’s still a world leading media outlet, and one of very few that can be considered not to be push an agenda. (I imagine I can find a lot of people that can probably disagree with that too…)
Even Routers has started editorialising, and I thought they were just meant to be raw facts!
Regardless of their wording, BBC news has a super Israel bias, and they even got called out on live TV during the news for it. They are not the place for unbiased reporting of this specific issue. The UK will always pretend Israel can do no wrong because they created them.
Well yeah, but like you say that’s more of a UK thing than a BBC thing. And in any case, the BBC refraining from calling Hamas terrorists shows that they do at least have some limits on their biases, where they do have them.
Or are you biased which makes you mistakenly think the BBC is 'super' biased in favour of Israel and claim the UK 'will always pretend Israel can do no wrong'?
Well that’s good, perhaps the guy having a go at them had an effect. There was literally nothing about the first counterattack shelling by Israel when it happened and I thought it was very strange.
Well that’s good, perhaps the guy having a go at them had an effect. There was literally nothing about the first counterattack shelling by Israel when it happened and I thought it was very strange.
Pretty much all news sources are good for something, so long as it’s outside of their bias’ sphere of influence. A fully state run national news outlet can potentially give very unbiased news about events in another country - maybe even better than local news sources - so long as there isn’t some conflict of interest.
It is biased and wrong, you can see by the obvious problem in their research, like Hamas is considered terrorists by the entire western world, therefore saying that you don’t call them that because you don’t want people to tell what to think is terrorism support.
I disagree; it’s a loaded, politicized word. Even if you say that the “entire western world” considers Hamas a terrorist organization, that’s a sweeping generalization which, even if it could be called 100% true, does not represent the whole world.
Tell me the facts without giving me those loaded words. I’m smart enough to draw my own conclusions.
You’re not objectively correct, “designated as terrorist by current and former national governments, and inter-governmental organizations” - they’ve expressed an opinion. You’re taking that opinion and presenting it as objective fact.
So you say your opinion on the world is worth more than the collective opinion of like half a billion people whose democratically elected leaders see them as terrorists?
In addition to the word “adjective”, you should also look up the definition of “objective”. Because you keep digging and digging and it’s making you look silly.
You are wrong. Whether it’s because you don’t understand what is being said or you are intentionally ignoring it, what you are saying is inaccurate and factually incorrect.
Proper old-school journalists, like John Simpson, won't be quick to call someone a terrorist. They will however report on someone who called them a terrorist.
It is their job to report the facts. That means that they report what they see and what they hear. Nothing more. That is journalism.
Coming to the conclusion that someone is a terrorist, isn't news or journalism. It's analysis or opinion. Often the journalist is in no position to form an opinion either way, and it's not really his job anyway.
The reason this sounds weird to many, is because journalism has gone down the shitter. This used to be standard. Reuters for example, is still quite rigorous in this. But most news organisations now mix factual reporting with analysis. Some 'news' organisations remove the news/facts entirely. Basically, reading an article written by a good journalist, you should not be able to tell what side of the argument they are.
Eg.
Good: According to Mr. X, the apple was red and tasty. -> the journalist is simply reporting on what Mr. X said. The reader can decide if Mr. X was telling the truth.
Bad: According to Mr. X, the red apple was tasty. -> the journalist wasn't there to see if the apple was red, Mr. X could be mistaken. The reader doesn't realise that the colour of the apple was described as being red by Mr. X and can't form their own opinion on whether to believe Mr. X.
The journalist doesn't avoid mentioning the apple is allegedly red. They just make it clear that they themselves aren't saying what colour it is, as they weren't there to witness what colour it was and because their opinion doesn't matter
And I know this may sound stupid, but it helps avoid (inadvertent) bias or accusations thereof.
then in the next sentence compare The IRA to the fucking Nazis.
What? Did we read the same article? Maybe I’m suffering from a reading comprehension deficit, here, but that wasn’t my interpretation at all. Could you quote where you think they draw that comparison?
I think your confusing a current affair/today tonight with actual news programs. I channel surf from 5-7:30pm and have never heard the main news programs of 7, 9, 10, SBS, nor the ABC editorialise like that in my 38yrs on this planet. At a stretch, they play clips of articles they’ve already covered at the end with the shows theme song over the top.
I see it all the time on aca and TT. Never on the main news shows, like I said, never in my 38yrs of being alive - and for the last 15yrs I’ve been watching the news between 5-7:30 unless I’m out. I seriously think you’re conflating current affairs shows with the news. Current affairs shows are held to a different (read: lower) standards and ethics levels than that of the news. Not to say there isn’t any bias or manipulation of the viewer, but they aren’t doing it with music. That’s aca and TTs domain.
Law is not some immutable force. Many countries have laws.
In some of those countries, Hamas is a designated terrorist organization. In others, it is not, and even considered and ally (or has been previously, such as Afghanistan, Algeria, Iran, Qatar, Syria).
Hamas its self is a government. They have their own laws. So whose laws should we defer to?
The point is that who is or isn’t a terrorist depends on the context and point of view you are speaking from.
There is no universality in that kind of word, and so its appropriate that the BBC isn’t using it.
I get the emotionalism behind this moment. But words matter. This was a state sponsored effort.
If there is any delineation between a terrorist act and state violence, it should be the existence of a state.
A state exists, Palestine. This was a state action, not a terrorist action. It was an act of open war, but not an act of terrorism. That’s a different thing.
Definitions and words matter. It can’t be “Everything I hate is terrorism”. Look at how the American right has done this with the word ‘fascism’ (largely to obscure their clearly fascistic approaches).
What Hamas did was not an act of terrorism. They have done that previously. This was an act of war.
This dude writes 50 comments a day on multiple accounts. From what I’ve seen they are completely filled with hatred and spitefulness and their personal conviction is more important than deliberation or compassion. It must be exhausting.
Critically, though, not the U.N. I linked to the same thing above before I saw your comment but came to a different conclusion. I personally call them terrorists but I’m not a journalist trying to be impartial on a global network. I think it’s fine for the BBC to just say which countries do label them terrorists without taking a side.
Kinda weird that New Zealand takes the time to differentiate calling the political arm of Hamas not terrorists and the militant arm of Hamas (Qassam Brigades) terrorists. Maybe someone should look into why.
I agree they shouldn’t parrot the views of the UK government blindly. But the BBC are not above the law. Stop that nonsense.
Hamas is a terrorist organization. They organize and commit acts of intentional violence against civilians with the express purpose of spreading terror.
Calling them anything else other than that is a disservice to the readers of the BBC and implicitly condones their actions by not labelling them as such.
Hamas has been the government in Palestinian since 2006.
No theyre not.
The Palestinian Authority is in charge of the West Bank and Hamas is “in charge” of Gaza (even tho Israel controls everything).
If you think Hamas is the government of Palestine, it actually makes sense. Israel loves pretending that’s true in the media. And probably the only reason they haven’t done anything about Hamas despite controlling every aspect of life in Gaza
Journalists should never label a group of people with an adjective. It’s Journalism 101. Your writing should be free of personal bias and report the facts and quoted statements. No assumptions are allowed.
Lmao, you’re seriously linking to a deleted comment to try to make your case?
Laws are, by definition, a legal opinion— which can be overturned, by the way, by another legal opinion. The only fact here is that it is, is some jurisdiction, a law.
That just is not the point. I mean, if you are involved in the conflict you can totally believe in anything, but the point is in the moment you call them terrorist and call it a day you lost any possibility to analyze the situation and understand WTF is happening and why.
BBC is not saying they are NOT terrorists, but it does not matter in this context.
The well known phrase is “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter”. I Imagine from their point of view, Israel is the ‘terrorist’ group, routinely bombing apartment buildings etc and that their actions are a proportionate counter (recent events nonwithstanding!)
Both sides of the current conflict have/are committing atrocities, but the reporting of those atrocities should be as factual and unbiased as possible.
But redirecting attention away from the topic being discussed just so you can whine about someone else doing the same makes it appear as if you’re justifying it so long as someone else does it.
Stop doing this. It’s juvenile and muddies the water. You want to discuss how shitty America is, do it in its own post where that can be discussed in full. Here, it doesn’t belong.
I’m not trying to do that, I’m trying to understand how to international interests interact with the war, if you really want to understand international conflicts you should do this all the time.
Saying “Hammas bad” is much more juvenile, and is equivalent of saying “fart” for the discussion
Only one involved was convicted as stated, but then completely let off so who cares? The higher ups that enabled it were completely let off. Others who were involved in the cover up completely let off. The whistleblowers, etc were shunned and ostracized by the military for decades.
The best way I’ve heard it described is that they both view the other group of people as existential evil. Far beyond enemies, something which is evil just for existing. Not just the militaries, but the nation, race, state, religion, whatever classification. With that viewpoint, any action you take can be justified. Just as nobody would think twice about killing a million mosquito larvae in a country that has thousands die from malaria, killing a few thousand of the other side is morally neutral at worst.
This is going to continue to be horrific for a while.
Did you see the big red letters that say “banned” at the top?
There’s nothing in the mod log because you weren’t banned from this community, you were banned from every community on lemmygrad.world by the instance admins.
You want to prove me wrong? Sign in to that account and comment fucking anywhere in this thread.
This has gotten old tho, enjoy lemmy.world while you can, I’ve heard they actually can IP ban now. And since you’re bragging about how many alts you have already to evade bans, I’m sure a lot of people have already reported you.
Bro I’ve literally linked the fucking comment i made from Shitjustworks, its not my fucking fault that “bans” dont federate correctly and since its not in the modlog im effectively not banned how the fuck should i even know?
And the alts aren’t for banevasion, they are to avoid downtime and to strain the server less, most people have alts, also to access stuff not available form certain instances.
Furthermore… IP bans are a joke… Just saying. If not even reddit could do them properly, lemmy isn’t going to either, and they are easily avoided by a VPN, Tor, and just restarting your router, also its not going to work if you use accounts from a different instance because then you would need to block the entire instance the user is coming from, wich would be very overkill.
But don’t worry, I’ve reported you all for antisemitism as well.
Hi I’m not related to that individual I just found your comment thread doing searches, I haven’t heard of the Lemmy software being able to do IP bans anywhere, would you mind sharing where you heard this information.
As far as I know the only way to do “IP Bans” on Lemmy is to manually block them from the server’s firewall but that’s not a Lemmy software feature, it’s a server feature, and it was also always possible.
Your SJW account is super banned, which should be visible if you copy and paste the link they posted directly (it’s probably getting converted to your instance where the account isn’t banned). You can comment on LW posts on SJW, but they’ll only be seen locally (and I’ve heard maybe some other servers due to bans not working correctly). LW itself will just drop your posts.
The reality is that they’re the militant faction of the de facto government of a quasi-state under Israeli occupation. It is complicated so the BBC just says who thinks they’re a terrorist group. That seems reasonable for journalists striving to be neutral.
“Everybody wants to occupy ‘the holy land’ and everyone who is taking part of that sucks”
While Israel has been basically a terrorist state, attacking Palestinians nonchalant, bombing civilian districts, and Hamas has grown in number, also basically being a terrorist state (the iron dome exists for a reason), it feels like we are forgetting that this whole argument comes down to religious rights. The argument will never end. The conflict will never end. Both groups are thumping their book claiming it’s their land. The war will go on for centuries until there’s nothing left to claim. That’s how religious war works, unless some other great motivator stops it.
The war will go on for centuries until there’s nothing left to claim
The US is older than Israel. My grandfather is older than Israel and he’s still alive. There was no state of Israel in 1920 and the Jewish population in the region was ~11%. This hasn’t been going on for centuries. It’s been going on for century.
The history of the Jews and Judaism in the Land of Israel has its origins in the 2nd millennium BCE, when Israelites emerged as an outgrowth of southern Canaanites, During biblical times, a postulated United Kingdom of Israel existed before splitting into two Israelite kingdoms occupying the highland zone
The Crusades, the Ottoman Empire, thankfully those only lasted a century and that’s when we determined who got what.
Yes I’m sure that since they didn’t have it before, they wouldn’t try to have it again. My point is not about nations that rise and fall. It’s that they will continue to rise and fall for this holy war on what they consider to be “their land”
Are you really sure that without US intervention, and the nation of Israel starting, there wouldn’t be orthodox Jewish terrorists on the other side of the border claiming it was “their land?”
Those claiming it’s “their land” will continue to fight, until everyone is dead. That’s my point.
There’s a reason every country that bitches about the BBC also gets accused of being far right authoritarians…
BBC calls them out, but pulls just short of saying it. And there’s nothing far right authoritarians hate more than someone calmly telling the world exactly what they want. If we flat out called them nazis, they’d argue they’re not technically nazis they’re sparkling fascists.
I’m really sorry, but in case of Armenia, Artsakh and Azerbaijan BBC has been extremely pro-Azeri for many years, all the way to using Azeri place names which literally were invented 30 years ago when they were attempting (then unsuccessfully, now successfully) to depopulate those places.
Now they seem to have made a 180 degree turn (still using Azeri place names, though), but that can be explained by there no longer being Armenians in Artsakh, so lying is no longer that necessary.
Now, about nazis and Azerbaijan … you comment seems asinine in that context.
Bullshit. They’ve used the word ‘terrorist’ for every other attack in the past two decades (9/11, London Bridge, Manchester Arena, 7/7, etc.). Was that not ‘choosing sides’ then?
They just can’t admit that the UK fucked up and condemn Israel because the lawyers told them not to
Government ministers, newspaper columnists, ordinary people - they’re all asking why the BBC doesn’t say the Hamas gunmen who carried out appalling atrocities in southern Israel are terrorists.
We regularly point out that the British and other governments have condemned Hamas as a terrorist organisation, but that’s their business.
As it happens, of course, many of the people who’ve attacked us for not using the word terrorist have seen our pictures, heard our audio or read our stories, and made up their minds on the basis of our reporting, so it’s not as though we’re hiding the truth in any way - far from it.
No-one can possibly defend the murder of civilians, especially children and even babies - nor attacks on innocent, peace-loving people who are attending a music festival.
There was huge pressure from the government of Margaret Thatcher on the BBC, and on individual reporters like me about this - especially after the Brighton bombing, where she just escaped death and so many other innocent people were killed and injured.
That’s why people in Britain and right round the world, in huge numbers, watch, read and listen to what we say, every single day.
The original article contains 595 words, the summary contains 197 words. Saved 67%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Yes. They had no thought to the effect it would have on public opinion? Do you see the other headline where Germany will review their aid to Palestine?
Hard for me to believe they would want to shoot themselves in the foot like that. Very short sighted.
Can't blame Germany here. One of the victims was a German woman, which was later seen on the back of a truck, all of her limbs broken / deformed, just in underwear and with a deep wound in the head, paraded around and spat at from even civilians.
hamas don’t care about public opinion. The PLO cared. The PLO was largely destroyed from within with much of the power and funding shifting to hamas (allegedly with israeli government support).
Iran allegedly gave them funding and helped them smuggle even more weapons in. They used these to engage in acts of terror. This will lead to more power and support from third parties. And the retaliatory strikes from israel will lead to more recruits from within whatever remains of Palestine when this is over.
But the goal is not to achieve freedom. Because hamas knows it can’t rule. At best we would have a debacle like in Afghanistan or any of the islamic state ruled regions/countries. They are just violent warlords who want all the power and “prestige”, the right to rape and murder anyone they want, and that is it.
And, much like with israel’s atrocities, it is really easy for people to ignore the evil shit hamas does because “they are an oppressed people fighting for survival”. That goes out the window when the oppression does.
The PLO, for all its flaws, wanted to become a government. And while they still exist, they are even less influential than the youtubers telling people what to feel about the past 24 hours or so.
I get what you're saying and can accept that Hamas is this way. I am not up to date on them.
But I do think it is important to point out just how foolish and short sighted it is to be that way. It feels to me like saying the sky is blue but I think it should be said.
You’re still approaching this from a completely different, and rather privileged, position. You are expecting to live a long life and want things to be better and so forth
These are violent terrorists who know that, even if everything goes their way, they’ll likely die young. So it is about short term benefits and doing what they want now.
Their explicit aim is the complete destruction of Israel. It is incredibly easy to believe. To quote the Hamas charter:
Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.
[Peace] initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement... Those conferences are no more than a means to appoint the infidels as arbitrators in the lands of Islam... There is no solution for the Palestinian problem except by Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are but a waste of time, an exercise in futility.
The Day of Judgment will not come about until Muslims fight Jews and kill them. Then, the Jews will hide behind rocks and trees, and the rocks and trees will cry out: 'O Moslem, there is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him."
Hamas is explicitly opposed to peace, and it's sole aim is to murder or expel every Jew from the land. Any supporting these attacks needs to asked if this the aim they really want to support.
Hard to justify supporting either side, what with Israel’s actions over the years. There is no good side, and the losers will be the average citizens on both sides.
“Fifty terrorists arrived in vans, dressed in military uniforms,” she said.
It is not far from the Gaza Strip, from where Hamas fighters crossed over at dawn to launch their attack. They infiltrated towns and villages, taking dozens of people hostage.
How is that possible to get that many armed people and vehicles across THAT border? I have never been there, I only know pictures of parts of the border from media, with barb wire fences, walls, concrete blocks, surveillance cameras, military checkpoints. Pretty much a border made to prevent anything like this.
Does anyone have further information where or how they managed to get that many people with that much equipment into Israel?
Easy, if your country is run by a corrupt, authoritarian leader like Netanyahu, you will end up with corruption, laziness and ignorance in the whole governmental system.
A lot of information is speculation, misunderstandings, and outright FUD
But WSJ are generally reputable and this lines up with a lot of what I have seen discussed in various OSINT forms. www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjhMAMAPgeM
But basically: Coordinated attack, blowing holes in walls, and successfully attacking checkpoints.
Everyone wants to paint this as a huge failure and massive incompetence by the idf. And… it is. But it is also a largely unavoidable one. Because that concrete and barbed wire wall is basically the entire “no man’s land” between Gaza and israel. And without leveling even more of Gaza (about that…), there is no real defense against that. A breach is “easy” if you are willing to sacrifice your own lives and then it is a matter of getting forces through. It won’t be enough to “take israel” but it is enough to launch terrorist attacks and even capture hostages.
I am very curious as well. I read in the AP that the government is getting a lot of scrutiny over that at the moment but hasn’t provided any responses. All I have heard was that it was a well planned and coordinated attack so maybe the use of electronic warfare along with an initial attack on monitoring stations? Very interested in reading the report once more information is available.
I read they used motorised paragliders to cross over the border fence. The vans may have been captured afterwards. But this is my guess and I have no idea if there were forces that managed to overpower israeli forces controlling checkpoints.
I can’t tell you exactly what happened to let this particular breach happen, but from what I’ve seen myself and what I’ve heard from family:
There are many security checkpoints like the one where my cousin got stabbed (in his vest, he’s ok!!!) Palestinians are guided through essentially storage containers and checked by members of the IAF on their way to work or whatever reason they have to visit what we’ll agree to call Israel merely for these explanations. While heavily guarded, these points would be incredibly easy to breach if you’re willing to sacrifice enough lives through drastic enough of measures.
While many are heartless regarding the situation the Palestinians have been put in, the Israelis aren’t totally emotionless. Some parts of Palestine are quite cultural and beautiful, so the walls are more like fences so that the Israelis and tourists can appreciate the aesthetics created by the oppressed population.
Remember the rule of 80/20: the top 20% of the areas get 80% of the resources due to wealth inequality. While many areas have perfectly adequate infrastructure, many places have over-the-top security and infrastructure, leaving some places to be underfunded and dilapidated. It’s not totally unbelievable that people could get over, under, or through the walls.
People get into Israel “illegally” all the time. These holes in the security are quickly found and patched up because the person who crossed the border is quickly collected and questioned. I’d reckon that if more patient members of the population took the time to construct more effective modes of crossing the border, they wouldn’t be discovered due to ignorance, allowing a large crossing briefly. When you’re relying on opposition telling on themselves, you don’t know what they don’t tell you.
Sudden strength in numbers with little broadcasting would be enough to overwhelm some crossing areas.
Ultimately, something like this was bound to happen eventually, primarily due to the leadership of king Netanyahu and the poisoned minds of the Israeli population. I’m not saying that all people in Israel are inhuman, but the constant barrage of belittling talking points about the Palestinians have caused even some of my more sympathetic family members to begin believing some of the propaganda that allows atrocities against other humans to go relatively unopposed. The way that they’ve learned to justify these things to themselves is shocking to me, especially when they follow up toxic sentiments with, “most Palestinians are incredible people and all of Palestine deserve peace.”
Also, if you’ll allow me to put on my tinfoil hat for a moment: with all of the egg that’s been all over Netanyahu’s face recently, a war is a really great way to garner support and deflect attention from his scandals. I wouldn’t be surprised to eventually learn that there was plenty of intelligence about this attack and they were dismissed as lacking credibility and whatnot. I’m not saying that I 100% believe that Netanyahu possibly had a hand in these attacks happening, but I do know that he’s been talking about, hoping for, and probably needing a war for quite some time to empower his corruption and further genocide a population for which he harbors incredibly disgusting feelings.
Frankly, complaints about Israel on this exact front have been plentiful for decades. Their settlers, artillery, white phosphorous bombs and so forth, all have been targeting civilians for as long as I can remember, and are clearly documented at doing so in the last few days as well. It feels like everyone rushing to condemn only Hamas has just gotten their first dose of this conflict this week - there isn’t a “good guy” side here, period (besides of course, the actual innocent civilians being killed on both sides).
These times are increasingly giving me the eerie feeling that we have forgotten very, very important lessons that we learned in the previous century. Is fascism making a very powerful comeback?
Officials are reportedly investigating allegations that NewsClick - an independent news and current affairs website known for being critical of the government - received illegal funds from China, which it denies.
One of those attending, human rights activist Yogendra Yadav, told the BBC it was “an attempt to muzzle voices”, adding: “There cannot be any doubt that is an out-and-out attack on the Indian media.”
Booker Prize-winning novelist Arundhati Roy, who attended Wednesday’s protest, said the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act had been amended to include intellectuals, writers and journalists under the definition of terrorists.
Among those also questioned were journalists Abhisar Sharma, Paranjoy Guha Thakurta, Aunindyo Chakravarty, Urmilesh, Bhasha Singh, popular satirist Sanjay Rajoura and historian Sohail Hashmi.
Since Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s BJP party came to power in 2014, a number of media outlets have been investigated for alleged financial impropriety, raising fears about press freedom in the world’s largest democracy.
The NewsClick raids and the arrest of Prabir Purkayastha and Amit Chakravarty are the latest attempts by the Indian government to decimate independent and critical media."
The original article contains 568 words, the summary contains 178 words. Saved 69%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Jesus, drivers these days. Come on guys, it’s unsafe to be drinking tea like that - you could burn yourself, and then get distracted and crash! Think of the other road users. Be better. It’s much safer to drink something cool and refreshing, like an ice-cold Stella or a Carling.
bbc.co.uk
Newest